The Sun. — London, England, 1838-03-03 00:00:00

luctance to draw the attention of the House to a speech in the public papers; in which his name appeared. He would not say where, but it was sufficient for him to mention that his name was brought before the public in a character which he did not think he deserved. It had been observed by a Right Reverend Prelate in some place, he would not say where, regarding the oaths of the Roman Catholic Members, that the animus with which the oath had been proposed was the criterion by which it ought to be interpreted ; and the Right Reverend Prelate said he was desirous of ascertaining from some Member of the Crown, at the time of the passing of the Relief Bill, what that animus was. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. L.) a much more ready way to get at that animus, to see what was said by the Minister of the Crown of that day, than to ask that Minister of the Crown at the present moment what his intention was at that time. The first passage in the speech of the Right Reverend Prelate in which he (Mr. L. ) was mentioned by name, was in the following terms : Ano ther, and he believed a more favourable notion had been set out—that the oath was not to: affect parties in their Legislative capacity. That notion was brought forward, he believed, in the first instance, by an lion. Gentlemau, the brother of a Noble Lord, a Member of that House—by the lion. Mr. Langdale." He (Mr. L.) acknowledged that his opinion had been that the animus with which the oath was proposed was the criterion by which the oath should be judged. Now the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth ( Sir R. Peel) introduced the measure of Catholic Emancipa tion ; and, as the House adopted the measure, it was fair to conclude that they adopted it in the very sense in which he proposed it. He (Mr. L.) would read from " Hansard's Debates" that part of the Hon. Baronet's spee(h which specially referred to the Roman Catholics being in Par liament. The Right llonourable Baronet alluded to a mo tion made by Mr. Wilmot Horton. He (Mr. L.) world men tion that the Right Rev. Prelate must have been aware of this before lie alluded to it and !aid it did net apply to the matter. The House would see whether it did or not. The Right Hon. Baronet said " Another proposal has been made by a Right Hon. Friend of mine, who suhrgests from a suspicion of the manner in which t. 14 Roman Catholics night exercise their Parlia mentary privilege, that they shall be precluded by law from voting on matters relating directly or indirectly to the in terests of the Established Church. Now, I object to this proposal, first, because it is a dangerous thing to establish the precedent of limiting by law the discretion by which the duties and functions of Members of Parliament are to be exercised ;: secondly, because it is difficult to decide beforehand what are subjects affecting the interests of 'the Church ; and thirdly, because by excluding Roman Catholics from giving their individual votes you do little to diminish their real ihfluence. I believe you will find more real security in confidence than in avowed (Istrust and suspicion, unaccompa - nied by effectual means. For these reasons T, am unwilling to deprive Roman Catholic Members of this house of that freedom of judgment which belongs to other Members of the Legislature. I would put them upon the same footing with a Dissenter from the Church of England." Now, if there were to be no " avowed distrust and suspicion," it could not be intended to restrain them in the exercise of their legislatorial functions. The SPEAKER here interrupted, and suggested to the lion. Gentleman if he was confining himself exclusively to a mater of privilege ; if not, there was no motion before the House, and he was entering upon a subject which might pro duce a protracted debate. Mr. LANGDALE—Then he would conclude with a Teo fon, but he thought it extremely hard that when an accusation of perjury was made against him personally, he should not have an opportunity of %indicating himself, while the aecu• sation was circulating all over the country.—( Loud cheers ) Now, what was the opinion of Sir Charles Wetherell on this subject? His words were : " Suppcse we were to move the destruction of the Established Church : d yen me-au to tell me, that Catholics would be acting agaiest their Pailiamentary oaths if they sanctioned such a m.•asure."—( Hear, bear.) Ills ( Mr. L.'s) name had been broaght forward in a second accusation by the Ri g ht Reverend Prelate. His words were —" It (tile Catholic oath) had been assimilated to the declaration made by D'sseutere on taking office. This teas a notion of Mr Langdale," &c. Now, he (Mr. L.) bed stated this, and Ire thought it a very. statesmanlike view of the suhject. welds of the oath were : " I solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I will eesa r exercise ;Iry influence that I may obtain by virtue of the office nhich I hold, to weaken or subvert the P.'otestaiit Church as by law established"—the remainder of the oath however went much further than that which was taken by the Catholics—" or to disturb the rights of its Bishops rr Clergy." Now what was the distinction Orawn by the Right Rs verend Prelate ? That the declaration was eapresely limited to England, and not to Ireland, and did not bied the parties to any particular tenderness towards the Church in 1.-eland. Session after Session they had be , n bearing it . asserted that they could not affect the Church in England without affecting that in Ireland ' • and were they, after this, to be charged by the Right Rev. Prelate with per- juey ?—( Hear.) Why, the oath was as binding on a member of the Church of England as it was on a Roman Catholic. Had there been nothing done to affect the Church Eetablishment in England? There had been a diminution of bishoprics ; there had been an alteration in the see of Chester ; and he believed thet mraeure seas approved of even by the heads of the Church themselves. Now this had been done by men who ace!ording to the Right Rev. P. elate were as much bound by their oaths as Roman Catholics. Were these statements, however, new to thorn? Was this the first time they had heard of charges made respecting these oaths ? Whet was the case during the reign of George the Third ? 'Fhe Right Rev. Prelate said that a man in office was not bound by his oath, and yet the King was bound. The King, by his coronation oath, was bound himself to preserve to the Biehops and Clergy of the realm such rights and privileges as might appertain to them. The Hon. Member for Oxford had said in his place that it was a mockery to talk of Roman Catholics violating their oaths,_ if the King could do so. What did George the Fourth do ? Why, what the most learned member of the Bar said he could not do without violating his oath. William IV. did the same. According to the statement of the Right Rev. Prelate, the Archbishop cf Canterbury had violated his oath.—( Cheers.) He thought the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, if he was charged with with perjury, would consider himself hardly dealt with. Ile (Mr. L.) was not in the habit of using strone• language ; :but any person having the feeling of a men, when he saw a -question like the present brought' before the public— when he had been dragged before it—he thought that he was called upon, not only in justice to his own character but those that be represented, to make the observa tions he had. He regretted the charges that had been mode by any individual, but when they came from a person whose sacred character ought to give all charity towards his neighbour, he must confess that it was derogatory to the dignity that he filled. He was proud to bear tes timony to the Prelates presiding over the Established Church, but when he looked to the accusations of the Right Rev. Prelate, he almost blushed to bring them before this khnise of Parliarnent.—( Cheers.) He thought the accusa tions were unworthy the character of a Prelate of the Church cif England, and he would venture to say that they were most agy,re.vated falsehoods.—( Cheers, ) The SPEAKER—I suppose the Hon. Member imputes falsehood to the arguments. Mr. L A NGDAL E--Certainly. When he used the word falsehood, he used it with reference to the expression. Ile would now move that the Morning Post be laid on the table. Sir E. SUGDEN felt bound to say a few words in conse quence of having been present when the Right Reverend Pre late made the observation, which had been alluded to. He could assure the Hon. Gentleman opposite, that his own irn presesion on those observations was, that they were directed with marked kindness towards the Hon. Member.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen might put what construction they pleased, but that was his impression. The SPEAKER thought that some substantive motion .shoulel be before the House. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN then said he would withdraw all that he had stated to a more fitting opportunity. The ATTORNE Y-GENERAL was not anxious to make many observatiohs, because the speoch to which the Right Rev. Prelate had alluded was uttered by him in a former Ses sion, and any objection to it ought to have been urged before. He believed that hie honour required no vindication whatever from the aspersions of the Right Rev. Prelate. Mr. O'CONNELL stated that the allusions made by the Right Rev. Prelate to him were totally without foundation. Lord II OW IC K, before the discussion terminated, begged to remark, that in the speech of the Right. Rev. Prelate, ex pressions had been attributed to him that were totally unlike any thing he had ever uttered, or bore any resemblance to it. The Alorning Post of the day was then ordered to lie on the table. Sir E. SUGDEN wished to ask the Hon. and Learned M s mber opposite (the Attorney-General) a question. Zhe ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Is it relative to the Bishop of Exeter ? Sir E. $ UGDEN wished to ask the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, when lie would really fix a day for the se cond reading of the five Bills relating to copyholds, manorial boundaries, escheats, and descents ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had expected to have moved the second reading that day, and to have named the Right Hon. and Learned - Gentleman upon the Committee. Sir E. SUGDEN begged leave to decline acting upon the Committee of any Bill brought in by the Learned Attorney.. General.—( Hear, and cheers.) When asking a question on mibjects vitally connected with the property of the country, and in which he (Sir E. Sugden) naturally felt highly inte rested, the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had insult ingly asked him whether his query referred to the Bishop of .Exeter ?—(flear. ) Anything that related to that Right Rev. Prelate would be discussed in its proper place ; but be (Sir Sugden) desired—( Cries of " Order, order," drowned the /conclusion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's sentence). The ATTORNOY-GENERAL had not the most distant intention of offending or insulting the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman.—( Hear. ) Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to repeat a question which he had put to the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department a fortnight since. It was when the papers rela livf, to the dispute with the United States concerning the 'boundaries of Maine and New Brunswick would he laid On tl'e table. The Noble Lord ha ,l stated a fortnight blek that they were nearly mealy, yet they rwera not yet forthcominf;. Lewd J. RUSSELL said that the papers bad been pre pared by the Noble Lord in whose department they lay, amt given, as he thought, to he printed;- but he had since found - that tire papers he had directed to be printed were other papers, and not those the Rieht Hon. Barcia:t ached for. 110 (Lor Russell) h a d no 6:; - u - ' bt they would soon be presented to the., ,Hou:e. Lc ,rd SANDON begged to ask the President of the Board or T rade bad any remonstrance beearnade to the Danish Go vernment for the stoppage of vessels passing the Sound to undergo quarantine ? Such detention was highly detrimental to the cotton trade of this country. Mr. P. THOMSON said the attention of the Government was drawn to the subject. Upon Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S moving the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Poor Law ( Ire and) Bill. Mr. FR ESHFIELD desired to have some understanding respecting the five Bills which the Attorney-General had upon the papers of the night set down for the second reading. The answer to the question at the office, " Are the Attorney- Gene ral's Bills printed?" was, " No, Sir;" and to the second question, " Is any one of them printed?"—" No, Sir," which was really too bad.—( Hear.) He thought some period ought to be mentioned by the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General when there would be a possibility or a probability of their being discussed. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the Hon. Mem ber they had all been completely drawn up. He had no notion when the momemt would come when they could be distributed, but when they were he would tie any day, the earliest Hon. Gentlemen, pleased for the discussion. Sir E. SUGDEN hoped the Learned Attorney-General would have more success with these than he had with some former measures which he had drawn up for the amendment of the law. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would be quite satisfied if the present Bills were as well drawn up, and as satisfactory to the public, as the Wills Bill—to which he supposed the lion. and Learned Gentleman alluded—had been. After a few words from Mr. O'Connell, Sir E. Sugden, and Lord John Russell, the matter dropped. POOR LAW (IRELAND) BILL. The House went into Committee on this Bill. Clause 47 bing proposed, Mr. GRA TTAN rose to move the omission of this clause, which empowers the guardians to provide for emigration. In his opinion this clause was a relief to the rich rather than the poor. The effect of any emigration forced by publiclwaf.s went directly to check it. He was ready to tax his con stituents with the support of the workhouses, but he was not prepared to tax them for this purpose. Mr. LYNCH supported the clause. He wished to know from the Noble Lord how the expense of emigration was to be borne ? Captain JONES wished to know how the money was to be raised by the guardians in the different unions ? Viscount MORPETH admitted that the absence of a case of settlement must operate against the working of this clause ; but still he thought the clause would lead to some good. After a siren conversation, in which the amendment was supported by Mr. O'Connell, Mr. S. O'Brien, and Mr. French, and opposed by Lord J. Russell, Sir R. BATESON should oppose the clause, as it was calculated to render the Bill a curse, rather than a benefit, to Ireland.—( Hear, bear.) At the suggestion of Mr. Bernal, two or three incidental verbal amendments, proposed by different lion. Members, were here disposed of, in order to clear the way fur Mr. Grattan's amendment, that the clause be struck out. Mr. WYSE approved of the clause, as he was strongly in favour of the principle of emigration. - Sir F. TRENCH thought the poor of Ireland ought to be provided for in a better manner than this Bill afforded : and that they ought not to be shut up in those workhouses. Mr. Sergeant .JACKSON supported she clause as it stood. Mr. REDINGTON supported the Bill generally, and did not consider that any material emigration would ever take place, as the coeotry would be much improved in its general condition by this Bill. A desultory conversation here arose as to the wording of the clause, in which Str E. Sugden, Mr. S. O'Brien, Mr. J. Grattan, Sir R. Ferguson, and Mr. S. Rice, with caller Hen. Members, took a part. The CHANCELLOR of the. EXCHEQUER would sug g,est that, in all cases where emigrants ware to he sent out at the expense of the Union, their clai.ns should be inves tigated at two separate meetings of the Board of Guar dians. —( Hear. ) Mr. LUCAS said that the Right Hon. Gentleman was rea. toning directly contrary to the sense of the House. All bad agreed that emigration would be an evil, as withdrawing the able-bodied labourers from the country. Lord M 0 R PET II thought that the united labour of Hon. Members had put the clause into a shape which would effec tually guard against abuse. Such being the case, he should certainly vote for its retention.—( Hear, hear.) After some observations from Captain Jones, Sir R. Fer guscon, and Mr. O'Connell, Mr. LITTON declared himself in favour of the emigration clause. Lord M 0 R PETH said that the Bill provided that the ap plication should be supp.rted by three-fourths of the Guar dians, but the sum given to be regulated by the Cemmi , sioncs. At the second meeting the Guardians would only have to de cide on the particular persons to be sent. Sir F. TRENCH approved of the suggestion of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer. Lord CASTLEREAGH very much doubted the expedi ency of emigration. He would suggest that the clause be withdrawn. Lord MORPETH would be very willing to take the ad vice of the Noble Lord, but that he felt afraid that the next accounts from Ireland would inform them that the most popu lar clause had been withdrawn. Mr. O'CONNELL said that this was the clause which had been most emphatically condemned at the Poor-law meeting in Dublin. Mr. Staunton, of the Register, who drew up the report of that meeting, condemned this clause in express terms. After a few words from Captain JONES and Sir EDWARD SUGDEN, Lord MOR PETH proposed the insertion of these words, " That the sums necessary for emigration purposes should be raised under the direction of the Commissioners, and that per sons proper to be sent out should be recommended by two suc cessive meetings of the Board of Guardians." The question was then put from the Chair that tho clause as amended be agreed to. Mr. J. GRATTAN would persist in moving the omission of the clause, and would divide the House on that motion. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. Ayes .. . Noes Majority against the amendment —4s Clause 48 was agreed to. On clause 49 being proposed, Sir E. SUGDEN said that if no person else proposed the omission of the Clause altogether, he should move the leaving out of those parts of it which rendered it imperative upon every married woman to maintain all the children of her husband, including, of course, those which might be the product of a former marriage. To compel the wife to maintain the for mer children of a husband, who was either unable or unwilling to provide them, was alien to all the principles of the British Constitution. The provision, whilst it threw the whole liabi lity upon the mother, would not have the effect of checking immorality. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that the clause laid down no new rule. The 49th and 50th clauses should be taken together. The meaning of the clauses was, that if the children were to be maintained by the parish, the mothers of such children should, though not receiving relief, be still con sidered as chargeable to the parish. The object was to make the mothers of illegitimate children receiving relief to be con sidered as also chargeable. Any seeming harshness was re moved by the next clause, which enacted that all relief given to mothers or children should be considered as given to him ho was liable to their maintenance, and that he sould be held as chargeable. There was no new obligation cast here, and, therefore, there was no hardship. Mr. O'CONNELL said the effect of the present clause would be to prevent labourers coming over here to earn occa sional wages, When the labourer came back with his wages they would deduct from his poor pittance the amount for which his wife and family became chargeable. This, perhaps, might be just and right, but it would alter the entire state of things in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) The poor labourer who stinted himself of every necessary—who lay, perhaps, in a ditch, too happy if he could procure shelter in a barn, would find his little hoard thus broken in upon. Would not such a law hold out a temptation not to come back at all—( Hear, hear)—to leave his family altogether, and thus all the ties that soothed and softened humanity, and which it was the boast of the Irish poor to cherish—( Hear, hear)—and this, forsooth, was a law of charity and benevolence to Ireland. It was a frightful clause, and could not exist in its present condition. Sir E. SUGDEN said that the argument of the Attorney- General seemed to assume the right of relief. How could the term'chargeable be used if there was no right to relief ; or why should the penalties in the 53d Clause be laid down ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say that it was the intention to remove th ese p ena l t i es . Sir ED WARD SUGDEN admitted that would be an improvement of the Bill. He still, however, did not see, as there was no right of relief, why the 49th or 50th Clauses should be retained. Some further conversation then ensued, when Sir EDWARD SUGDEN moved as an amendment, that the words "and every married woman shall maintain her child, and every child of her husband," bu ommitted. Lord iIOR PET H agreed to the amendment. The words, " married woman" were then orderec to be struck out of the Clause. Mr. LUCAS proposed a similar amendment respecting bastard children. It was to the effect of making fathers .T. 43 well as mothers of bastard children liable for their maintenance. After a few words from the Solicitor-General, Mr. Darby, the Attorney-General (for Ireland,) Mr. O'Connell, Sir E. Sugden, Mr, Jepbson, Lord Mcrpeth, Lord Clements, and Mr. Barron, the amendment was understood to be agreed to. The clause as amended was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. C.:Julies 50 and 51 were aizo agreed to. Clause 52 was postponed, zt the suggestion of Mr. G'CON NELL. Lord J. RUSSELL observing, as he assented to the post ponement,that though he believed the principle (attachment of wages) to be a just one, he did not, notwithstanding, anti cipate any very great b enef i t from its practical operation in Ireland. And the Noble Lord further added that unless the clause should meet the general approbation of the House he should not feel inclinad, even at a future period, to press it as part of the Bill. On clause 53, Sir E. SUGDEN inquired bow the framers of the Bill in tended to apportion relief to the families of labourers travelling to Ireland io search of work, or i n t h e case of an incurable ' cripple whose father was not able to maintain it by his wagcs as a labourer? Was he and his whole family to go into the workhorse to obtain relief for it? Lord J. RUSSELL said that it W 5 never intended by th,, words or this clause to prevent the guardians from exercising such a discretion as might enable them to extend relief in such THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 3, 1835. cases. It was not imperative on them to compel the parents to enter in these cases. Mr. MAU LE thought that there was no necessity for alter ing the clause. Mr. LYNCH thought that now was the proper time to in troduce a provision against vagrancy. Lord J. RUSSELL said that a law against vagrants would be quite inoperative until this provision for the poor had been some time in operation. Mr. O'CONNEL L would move that the guardians be per mitted to freely admit part of a family only.—( Hear.) Mr. WALKER advocated the propriety of empowering the guardians to lock up those professional mendicants who were so great a curse to Ireland. Mr. JEPHSON supported the views of the Hon. Member for Wexford. Sir C. STYLE and Mr. J. GRATTAN supported the proposal for allowing the guardians a discretionary power of admitting part of a family without obliging them to imprison all in the workhouse. Mr. W. BARRON would contend against the perpetuation of any such severe penalties. Sir E. SUGDEN hoped that the new psor-houses would not be turned into bridewells for the mendicants. A long discussion took place respecting the propriety of adopting the words " absconding out of the workhouse," which it was contended by Mr. O'CONNELL and Sir E. Sco. DEN might be interpreted to apply to persons who had never been in the workhouse, but had absconded to avoid entering it. Mr. O'CONNELL said that it was necessary to be very explicit in framing laws that were to be put in force by Irish country Magistrates, many of whom interpreted the laws with very considerable latitude, to suit their own notions of equity.—( Laughter.) One country gentleman (Mr. Bolin. - - broke), who bad been so obliging as to make an abstrct of the statute for the use of his brethren, headed one of his chapters, " vagabond"—vide " Irish gentlemen."--( A laugh.) The clause was then verbally amended and passed. Clauses 54 and 55 were struck out. Clause 56 was agreed to, with some verbal amendments. Clause 57 w as postponed. Clause SS, with some formal ammdments, was agreed to. Clause 59 was postponed, and the Chairman having re ported progress, LordJ. RUSSELL said that it was his intention to pro ceed with the other clauses of the Bill on Friday next. On the motion of Mr. Wysg, the following returns were ordered : Return of the sums granted by Parliament in each year, from 1834 to 1837 inclusive, for the advancement of educa tion in England and Wales. Return of the number of applications made to the Lords of the Treasury in each year, from 1834 to 1837 inclusive, for aid towards the building or maintenance of schools, or pay ment of teachers, classified according to the counties and reli gious denominations to which they respectively belong. Return of the number and amount of grants, and of the amount of each grant, severally made by.che Lords of the easury in answer to such applications, classified accord ing to the counties and religious denominations to which the schools to which such grants have been made respectively belong. Copy of the conditions and regulations under which such grants have been made. Report of the manner in which such grants have been ap plied to each school, and of the results produced thereby. Return of the names and qualification of Inspectors, if any, appointed by the Treasury, to see such grants applied in ac cordance with the regulations under which they were made. Return of the sum granted by Parliament for the establish ment of schools for teachers Report of the progress made, if any, in the application of such grant. Mr. BAINBRIDGE moved for Returns, relating to the distillation of spirits in England, Scotland, and Ireland, re spectively. Mr. BARRON moved for copies of communication ad dressed to Lord J. Russell on the subject of the Irish Board of Charitable Bequests in March, 1837. Mr. GIL LON moved fur the following Returns, which were agreed to : Return of the names of the parishes in Scotland in which Churches, in connection with the Church of Scotland, hare been erected, to which parishes quoad sacra have been an nexed, including those Churches which were denominated chapels of ease ; and the amount of the uneahausted teinds in the original parishes of which these parishes quoad sacra formed a part. Also the names of the parishes in Scotland in which Churches in connection with the Church of Scotland (not being parish Churches) are now being erected, and the amount of unex hausted teinds in each of these parishes ; specifying in both cases the class, or classes, under which these ut:exhausted teinds fall. Li.ave of absence was granted to Mr. F. Mat , LE for three weeks, on the ground of the ill-health of a near relative (ai we understood), and to Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, for circuit. Adjourned at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock. ROUSE OF LORDS, MAReir 2. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a Supplement to the Treasurer's account of the city of Dublin. . . Lord R NDNOR presented a petition from the inhabitants of Carlow, praying for Vote by Ballot. Lord DEVON presented a petition from North Devon, against the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Act. Lord ASHBURTON presented a petition praying for the reduction of postage. Lord R E DESD ALE presented petitions from Shafton, in Westmoreland, Kirkby Lonsdale, and another place, in favour of the atiolition of Negro Apprenticeships. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from_Glou cester, against favouring any system of education in which the Bible is not taught conformably to the articles of the Church of England. Lord BROUGHAM stated that he had made an arrange ment in the absence of the Noble Duke, whom ho now saw opposite, to bring on his motion on Tuesday next, and he wished to know from the Noble Duke whether that day would be convenient for him ? The Duke of WELLINGTON said it would. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the skinners and glovers of Glasgow, against combination, praying that they might be heard at the bar in case of any relief being granted. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Ponty pool; from the inhabitants of Manchester, agreed to at a public meeting; from Basingstoke; from the Protestant Dis senters meeting in the Independent Chapel at Falmouth ; from the inhabitants of the County and Borough of Carmarthe n ; and from Thornton and Agar in Yorkshire, in favour of the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship. Also a petition from a place which was not heard, in reference to the Glasgow Cot ton-spinners, and their sentence. The petitioners, like some others whose petitions he had presented, seemed to have con sidered that it was in consequence of their combining to rise wages that they had been tried and sentenced. He (the Noble and Learned Lord) protested against that as he had always done.—( Hear, hear.) It was the duty and sometimes the right of working men to combine to raise wages ; but they were not at liberty to use violence or threats against those who thought proper to work. His opinion was that those poor men had been convicted of a very slight offence compared with what they had originally been charged, and that they had suffered sufficiently. The Noble and Learned Lord presented a petition to the same effect from the western branch of the Ladies' Shoemakers' Society, and a petition from the debtors in the gaol of St. Thomas, in the County of Devon, for the speedy passing of the Im prisonment for Debt Abolition Bill. He said, I have so many applications from different parts of the coun try on this subject, that I think it right to take this opportunity of answering them, which, otherwise, I have no means of doing, by reason of their number; and I dare say that my Noble and Learned Friend opposite, who has taken part with me in this Bill, will contirnt what I say, that there has been no delay whatever on the part of your Com mittee, for there is great difficulty in the details of the measure ; but so much day light has broken in upon u', that I have no doubt our labours will be brought speedily to a termination. Lord LYNDHURST said that the inquiry had been at tended with much difficulty, and had been now nearly brought to a close. Lord BROUGHAH thought that the Committee would close after two meetings more. The Noble and Learned Lord then presented a petition from Evesham in favour of National Education. SLAVE TRADE PREVENTION. Lord Lord BRO UG H AM—My situations,lt is w al h w e a r duty to call your Lordships' attention s, t d o i i :th i e s Y a l equity ag a re n e d able to charge s u n b 0 j w e c m t - y m a p t a t e in r f o u r l soenrigeokoisf filling p h e ig ti i t l ions. Pfairness ought to shine forth, with neglect of that duty which every one owes to his ,neighbour — namely , to ascertain the facts as charged before the charge is launched against any individual. But if, in add ition to a tot al want of attention to the facts, it is found that the facts are not of a secret nature , but that they are such as have passed before hundreds in this House , and that those facts have been circulated through the ordinary mean s of information—and that, iu addition to this information, which consists of the public press--of Members of the other House, who stand 'below your Lordships' bar in addition to al l these ordinary means, extraordinary means have been taken to p revent misconstruction--with the avowed purpose of making it utterly impossible to misrepresent what I said—then I think, m y Lords, that I have a right not only to complain that the ordinary course of justice has been departed from, but an extraordinary course even in the history c , f Injustice—l will call it no more, for I will not imitate the ex a,rrele which I have condemned has been dictated by the ultra z.lal of po li t i ca l partizanship. But it should not leave the floor of the other House of Parliament—it should have lain with all creeping, craw , ing , and unutterable thiags, upon the e arth's surface —it should not have emer g ed in to t he u pper air, I vad taint all t hat should be p ure and incorru p t. M y L or d s , J shall proceed to state those facts which will -srdships to tell whether I hav e already too enable you r 1. , highly chart; .ed my case, and whether I have been led aside by that ze 1 , with which I regard . every thing connected with this i raportant question—to misconstrue or exaggerate the accout its which I have laid before your Lordships. It is not ni stter of individual concern—not merely affecting the &cont it betweon the two Houses of Parliament—but it entwines it self around the whole question of slavery, for if I Lave been guilty of exaggeration, as I have demonstrated to your Lon Whips that I have only understated my case— if I have nu use the attack on slave -trading to be the vehicle of any exascer ! .ated statements against an honourable body of men--1 I.diould as the advocate of this great question— to who; n ii. is left by the country—to whom it is left, lam sorry to r,ay, by the Government, and to whom it is left for the prvsent by the other House of Parliament—l should have put my case in great peril. Therefore it is, my Lords, that I take the earliest opportunity of repelling—and I think I shall expose—the groundless charge which has so thoughtlessly been made. Political ani mosity has laid asleep all sense of justice, and I may add also of common sense. In one of the newspapers of this day a Gallant Officer is represented to have said in reference to a speech of mine in this House on the 21st of February, on the subject of head-money—and tchave said so in the hearing of the House, and even of the Chair :—" How did the, Noble and Learned Lord dare to utter such falsehoods?" My Lords, I read this in the newspapers—l represented it to the Speaker who heard it. Lord LYNDHURST—Had the Noble and Learned Lord any right to write to the Speaker ? Lord BROUGHAM, with great animation—My Lords, Have Ito be asked, in this day, whether I have any right to write to the Speaker because the charge was made in the other House of Parliament? Have I no right to write a letter to a private gentleman ? That, at least, is new in these days. Have Ino right to write a letter ? Had they a right, the one combining with the other, to charge me with an in famous offence ? I say the one combining with the other— for he whose duty it was to stop such a charge upon the spot remained silent and quiescent. Have I, being so charged, no right to write a letter, because they belong to one House and Ito another? I think, my Lords, I shall no longer hear that said, either in this House or elsewhere. I wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons—most respectfully !wrote to him—stating what it was that I understood had been uttered, namely, the words I have recited to your Lordships, and which I saw not only in the corner of the debate—not only in the columns of the newspaper which are devoted to the report of the debate, and in which I have no doubt they were set down word for word as they were uttered—but in other parts of the newspaper, where it was ostentatiously put forward that such a one had charged such a one with misrepresentation, and had employed towards him the two , offensive words " dare" and " falsehood," which I have already recited to your Lordships in the passage of which I complain. Now the charge was—and upon this depends the accusation of falsehood which is brought against me—that I was said to have charged the navy with partaking of blood money,according as blood-money is known to operate, and with having neglected and betrayed their duty as professional men, for the purpose of increasing their professional wages. What! if I never said anything of the kind? What !if all I said amounted to nothing even approaching it? What I if all I said was not only not like it—not even approaching to it —hut had not one atom, one iota, one tittle of the charge which lam falsely represented as having made ? What !if I said directly the reverse? What 1 if, for the very purpose of preventing such foul misrepresentations, I took the pains of stopping and twice over stating, in terms that I did not accuse those honourable and gallant men of anything of the kind ? What ! if I said that it was the tendency alone of this head money that I charged with being bad; stopping there, and distinctly and explicitly stating that I did not believe its evil tendency had operated upon the lion. and gallant men who were engaged to prevent the slave-trade? But I do not stop here. What I if I took the pairs to publish all this? What ! if for the first time in my life my name is appended to that publication upon the slave trade? What ! if I stated in the dedication of that pub lication to the Marquis Wellesley, that I then, for the first time, notwithstanding all the volumes I had written upon the subject of slavery and the slave trade, put my name to my work, and that I did do, in order the better to authenticate the words I used? What ! if I did not stop there? What I if the Noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty having said, in the course of the debate, that I had charged the officers of the navy with the offence, I immediately got up and said, " Not so ; I do not charge them with it ; I expressly and in terms said that did not charge them, and that it was the ten dency only of the head-money, and not the effect of it, of which I complained as being most prejudicial to the interests of the cause I had at heart ?" Perhaps those of your Lord ships who have been into the country, or who have been pre vented by indisposition from attending the proceedings of this House—perhaps, for instance, the Noble and Learned Lord ( Plunket) near me, my much beloved and highly-re spected friend, who has but very recently come over from the discharge of his duties at the head of the law in Ireland—per haps he, not having been present to observe what has been passing here, may say, as he might very naturally say, " Oh the whole matter is only of such recent occurrence that these parties, swift to condemn, but slow to inquire and unwilling to hear, have had no opportunity of reading the authenticated state ment ; the speech was made some time in February, and very probably it has only been published a few days, so that these persons have not had time to read it." What l if it has been published a month or more? The speech was made on the 29th of January. The whole month of February has elapsed, and I hold in my hand a copy of the speech, of which, I be lieve, hundreds of thousands have been circulated in various forms over the whole country, and which, being delivered on the 29th of January, was printed and published on the 2d of February. Then, upon the Ist of March, one calendar month afterwards, came the charge of my having said that of which I said the very reverse, and of which a month before I had taken the unusual pains of myself causing to be printed an exact, accurate statement of the words I used. Does that printed speech contain anything offensive to the navy ? I am not aware that I could speak more tenderly or more honourably of any class of men than I did in that speech of the officers of her Majesty's navy. I should have imagined that this must base been obvious to them all -, to such of them at least as are by nature endowed with even the most moderate share of clear understanding—who have not a head bewildered and puzzled by the want of that common temper by which ordinary minds even approach the discussion of questions of no extraordinary difficulty or complication. Except to such understandings as this it is difficult for me to conceive anything less offensive, anything less obnoxious than that which I am about to read, and which was taken as the ground of the charge of which I complain :—" I will not say that the cruisers having visited and inspected her would suffer her to pass onward. I will not impute,to gallant and honourable men a breach of duty, by as serting that, knowing a ship to have a guilty purpose, and aware that they Ind the power of proving this, they would vo luntarily permit her to aeccmplish it." Is there anything in this language to justify the charge which is brought against passage. ? Is s sa, g e.lt herehave falsehood commenced in t —" I B t I evil! notproceed with the even it suggest the that coast vessels than are on their u le closelyss re return rnfrom watched it. B on theirut m route ay towards leastwards affirm, without any fear of being contradicted, that the policy" —the policy—that was my argument, the tendency of the policy, not the effect of it—" that the policy which holds out a reward, not to the cruiser who stops such a ship and inter rupts her on her way to the scene of her crimes, but to the cruiser who seizes her on her way back when full of slaves, gives and professes to give the cruiser an interest in letting her reach Africa, take in her cargo of slaves, and sail for Ameri ca." I did not say that the officers engaged in the service yielded to the temptation thus held out to them—l merely ob served that it gave them an interest in allowing the vessels em ployed in the slave trade to complete their cargoes before they were attacked and captured, and it was the giving of that interest that I condemned. How did I proceed ?—" Moreover I may also affirm with perfect safety, that this policy is grounded upon the assumption that the cruiser will be influenced by the hope of the reward"—surely, a very rational argument--- " in performing the service, else of what earthly use can it be to other it? and, consequently, lam entitled to conclude that the offering this reward assumes"—assumes l by whom ? not by me, but by those who offer the reward—" that the cruiser cares for the reward, and will let the slaver pass on unless she is laden with slaves. If this does not always happen, it is very certainly no fault of the policy which is framed upon such pre posterous principle. But I am not about to argue that any such consequences actually take place." I cannot conceive any thing more plain than that. Is there any ambiguity, any uncertainty in the terms in which that last eentenee is ex pressed? I confess it appears to me be perfectly plain, perfectly intelligible. lam not about to argue that any such consequences actually took place. It may or may not be so in the result ; but the " tendency"—your Lordships will perceive that I limited myself entirely to the " tendency," and made no reference to the "effect"—" but the tendency of the sys tem is plain." I then went on to speak of the analogy that in say mind existed between head-money and blood-money. The evil of blood-money is this—an evil which I particularly pointed as making it incomparably more odious—that it has a tendency to make innocent persons forfeit their lives by the act of those who want to get the blood-money. Speak ing now in your Lordships' presence, who may have some re collection of what fell from me when I made the speech from which I am now quoting, it is hardly necessary for me to say that I made no attempt whatever to attribute the de sire for this odious blood-money to the officers of the British nav y. Your Lordships may remember that I did the very contrary. In order to go on the outside of safety, and to prevent the possibility of any invidious remark being made upon me on the occasion, I wont on to say, " That head money produces all the effect of blood-money I certainly am no t prepared to affirm ; for the giving a reward to informers on c apital conviction had the effect of engendering conspi racies to prosecute innocent men, a 3 well as to prevent the guilty from being stopped in their career until their crimes had ripened into capital offences ; and I have no coeception that any attempt can be made to capture vessels not engaged in the trade; nor indeed could the head-money, from the na ture of the thing, be obtained by any such means." I also upon that occasion declared to your Lordships the authority upon which I founded my statement, and said that it was Mr. Laird's excellent work upon Africa that had originated m y statement, that had caused me to bring it before your Lordships, and which would induce me to abide steadfastly by it until I had obtained full and complete relief for Africa and the suffering nowuffer universallyingnegroand dep a r n ee u a t t t e e d r e a x u t d in e ct u i n o d n e o m f u t e h d at tr e a x d e e: crable an which none but men of confused understanding and perverted judgment would seek to perpetuate in any degree of its ori ginal enormity. lam very far from holding that the men who have made these charges against me have the slightest f e ll o w -feeling in the world with those who would for ever put down the African slave trade. It is for the sake of defending the cruisers that they have come forward on this occasion ; and for the sake of defending the Government who resisted my motion. But it does not always happen that the persons for whom a voluntary defence is made by others are in the end in debted in any very great amount of gratitude to the volun teers by whom their cause has been supported ; and when the cause of these honourable and gallant men, the officers of the Queen's cruisers, has been taken up by volunteers of great judgment and remaikable for no great skill in the conduct of affairs, it may happen to them to say, " Spare us from our friends —spare us your defence—leave us rather to the mercy of a fair and candid accuser." I own if I were an officer in the navy I should not feel myself bowed down to the very earth by the depth of my gratitude towards those who had volunteered such a defence for me. I should not feel the lead of gratitude was supportable ; in fact, I should not much thank them for forcing their defence upon me. I should rather think that they_ had placed themselves upon the wrong side, and that I had a claim upon them in consequence of the defence which they had chosen so injudiciously to under take. For they have begotten suspicions in my mind that all is not right when I see men so over-zealous for one another— when I see men lose their temper in defending themselves or their friends—when I see them so touchy that they cannot stop to inquire —so hasty that they must needs look over the facts—so vehement in urging their defence that they will not even tarry to ascertain whether they were ever attacked or not —when I see them in this mingled state of feeling, with this want of judgment, this incapacity of reasoning, this loss of me mory, this almost total dimness of sight, bodily as well as mental—when I see them thus coming forward, not waiting till a charge is made, but at once entering the arena of con troversy, putting forward mighty charges, and supporting them by a fury of arms and storm of blows that no man may dare to encounter—when I see them carried off their legs by a too generous rivalry of over zeal and want of judgment—over zeal in an abundant degree, and want of judgment in en unna tural excess—when I see all this I cannot help surmising, I cannot shut my mind to the suspicion, that there is some sore place. When men wince so much—when they exhibit so many contortions and twistings at the bare idea of a charge, which charge has never been made against them—when they see phantoms of injuries, no injury having been committed upon them—when they have ghosts haunting them in their waking hours, and even in their senatorial position, where they are placed to discharge duties which some constituencies in some parts of the kingdom have been found to delegate to them from extraordinary confidence in their judgment, ca pacity, and skill.—when I see all this I cannot help suspect ing that perhaps, after all, there may be some ground of charge against them. To elucidate that point I shall con clude with a motion which, as I am informed, taking the best advice I could obtain upon the subject, will have the effect of proving whether the system of head-money has in fact produced the consequences which are to be apprehended from - it. I am not the man to shrink or quail because hard words are applied to me—l am not the man to be put down when I have a duty to perform because some persons, in the discharge of what, I suppose, they conceive to be their duty, foully and falsely charge me with saying that which I never uttered—l am not the man to be put down by any such management as that. Even if I find that the vehemence and rancour of the assault upon me have not been confined to the mists and ex ' halations which obfuscate the mind and clog the vision of or dinary men, but have reached that higher atmosphere where all should be serene—where all should be calm as Justice her self—where the equal scales of justice should beheld with an untremulous, fair, and determined hand (as in the other House there is a man appointed to hold those scales)—even if I find that higher and purer atmosphere defiled and tainted by the breath of a lower sphere, I will not be deterred. When I see the judgment so obscured—when I find the judgment so hopelessly bewildered, that what passed eight and-forty hours before has been as totally erased from the troubled tablets of the brain as if it had never happened at all—when I find the scales not only tremble in the hand of him appointed to hold them, but one of them absolutely kicking the beam, and that one not the government scale, but the scale in which the im pugners of the Government happen to sit—when I find that it is no want of authority which has occasioned this silence, this non.interruption, this unobstructive mood in that high quarter—when, on the contrary, I find that if ever a func tionary of that House existed who had interfered more with the usages of the House, who had put down many debating practices, who had reversed and altered the whole of the right of the people to debate upon petitions, by exercising which right I gained all the greatest battles that the people have won during the last twenty years against corruption and impolicy—when I find this, then indeed, I am led to ask how it happened that that which took place in the de bate on the Tuesday or the Monday, in which not one word m in was used nor one allusion made as to what had passed rinoCier House, in which the allusions that were made were of a nature the most absolutely indifferent , amounting to nothing more than a mere technical flaw in the forms of de bate—l say, when I find this, lam led to ask how it hap pened that that vague allusion, that that technical infor mality, called down an instant stoppage—produced an in stant interruption from the high quarter to which I have referred; whereas, upon a subsequent occasion, no hint, no sign, not even one faint and solitary cry of " Order" escaped from the same quarter, when words the most uncalled for, the most unjust, the most disorderly, the most indecorous that in the whole course of my experience I ever heard of, were uttered in the presence and in the hearing of him whose duty it is to preserve the decorum of debate? When I find all this occurring, then truly I cannot help feeling that there is some thing, if not altogether wrong, at least extremely awkward, in this case, and that the sooner it is set right by inquiry the better. For which purpose lam about to conclude by moving for papers, for the purpose of showing whether I was not pre cipitate in precluding all idea of charging the officers of th e navy with being influenced by head-money—whether I did not go out of my way, not in the right direction, but in the wrong, when I spoke only of the tendency, not of the effect of head money—when I limited myself to a discussion of the impolicy of the system, and carefully abstained from attributing any selfish motive to those who acted under it—whether, in short, the fast may not be (being the very reverse of that which I stated), that the effect as well as the tendency of this head. money has been to induce the officers of cruisers to allow the lading of slave-vessels to be completed before they com menced the work of capture. I have been in communication with a very experienced naval officer, who understands this question well, and who tells me that the object I have in view will be obtained, if I can procure front the Government-Ist, the dates of all captures of slave-ships for the list ten years ; 2d, extracts from the logs of the capturing ships on the day before and the day after each capture ; 3d, a return of all the other ships on the coast of Africa on the same day with the British ships stationed in cruising there ; and, 4th, the number of ships stationed on the east coast of Africa during the last ten years, specifying the years and the names of the ships. The Earl of MINTO said—ln justice to the two Hon. Gentlemen whose conduct had been so warmly and violently animadverted upon by the Noble and Learned Lord he (Lord Minto) must say that, upon the occasion referred to, when the Noble and Learned Lord made that very extraordinary and very able speech upon the subject of the Slave-trade, he (Lord Minto), for one, certainly understood the Noble and Learned Lord, not directly (because the Noble and Learned Lord guarded himself very carefully upon that bead), but in directly, to imply that the influence of head-money bad had some effect. The Noble and Learned Lord might remember that he (Lord Minto) distinctly stated upon that occasion that unless such an inference were drawn from the argument advanced by the Noble and Learned Lord, that argument, in point of fact, must be taken as amounting to nothing at all. His recollection of the bearing of the passages in question in the Noble and Learned Lord's speech undoubtedly was that the slave-ships were watched by the cruisers until they had completed their cargo of slaves, and it was not until they had done so that any attempt was made to capture them. Now, was it surprising that the captors felt hurt and indignant at such an imputation ? The Noble and Learned Lord could mean nothing else but that which he (Lord Minto) had de scribed. The strong and unambiguous impression which the Noble and Learned Lord's argument made on him ( Lord Minto) on the occasion in question was, that as long as head money was offered there was no expedient that could be adopted which would have the effect of putting down the slave-trade. What were the expressions in the copy of the speech which had been revised by the Noble and Learned Lord himself, and published under his authority ? In the first place the Noble and Learned Lord spoke of the analogy which existed between head-money and blood-money ; stating that in some points they both appealed to the same feelings and mo tives, and put in motion the same springs of human action. " Under the old bounty system (proceeded the Noble and Learned Lord) no policeman had an interest in detecting and checking guilt until it reached a certain pitch of depravity ; until the offences became capital, and their prosecutor could earn forty pounds, they were not worth attending to. The cant expression, but the insignificant one, is well known. He (the criminal) is not weight enough—he does not weigh his forty pounds'—was the saying of those who cruised for head-money at the Old Bailey. And thus lesser crimes were connived at by some—encouraged, nurtured, fostered in their growth by others—that they might attain the maturity which the law had, in its justice and wisdom, said they must reach, before it should be worth any one's while to stop the course of guilt. Left to itself, wickedness could scarcely fail to shoot up and ripen. As soon as he saw that time come, the policeman pounced upon his appointed prey, made his victim pay the pe nalty of the crime he had suffered, if not encouraged him to commit, and himself obtained the reward provided by the State for the patrons of capital felony. Such within the tropics is the tendency, and such are the effects of our heads money system. The slave-ship gains the African shores ; she there remains unmolested by the land authorities, and unvi sited by the sea. The human cargo is prepared for her ; the ties that knit relatives together aro forcibly severed ; all the resources of force and of fraud, of sordid avarice and of sa vage intemperance, are exhausted to fill the human market. To prevent all this, nothing, or next to nothing, is at tempted ; the penalty has not as yet attached ; the slaves are not on board, and head-money is not due. The vessel, to use the technical phrase, does not yet weigh enough ' • let her ride at anchor till she reach her due standard of five pounds a slave, and then she will be pursued l" Why was this the way in which a Gallant and Honour a bl e pro fession ought to be treated 2—( Hear, hear, hear.) But no doubt, by some ingenious combination of words, which he ( Lord Minto) should be told presently he was too stupid to comprehend, the Noble and Learned Lord would make out that all this meant directly the reverse of that which it ap peared to mean. The Noble and Learned Lord would at tempt to give some other colour to a passage which must ne cessarily affect the feelings of a gallant and honourable pro fession, and was it surprising that any member of that pro fession should be anxious, though perhaps in language a little too strong, to rescue himself and his brave friends from imputations so grave and unfounded? It was in his opinion impossible:, after reading the passage which lie had quoted, to take it in any other sense than that of a direct insinuation that there had been at least a neglect of duty on the part of the officers employed on the service in question. Now, he would be far from saying that there might have been one, or even that there might have been two instances of negligence on the part of naval officers off the coast of Africa; but he could unequivocally , say, that lie had no knowledge of any such case. He knew of no occurrence whatever that could justify the imputations which had been thrown out by the Noble and Learned Lord. Ile had had many opportunities of admiring the character of naval men, and had no reason to complain of their conduct in a single instance. Lord BROUGHAM observed that there seemed to be a combination between those who had made the charge against him and the Noble Lord who had defended them. They had all fallen into the same mistake. The Noble Lord maintain ing that all his (Lord Brougham's) disclaimers meant nothing The Noble Lord was determined not to mind disclaimers at all. Now, as a disclaimer distinctly showed to what extent a speaker intended to go, and to what extent he did not intend to go, every fair listener to a speech paid great attention to a disclaimer, in order that he might cor rectly appreciate the speaker's object. It was not to charge the gallant and honourable profession of the navy to say that head-money had an injurious tendency. When the Noble Lord read three or four pages of his (Lord Brougham's) speech to their Lordships, he should have taken his dis clejrner also into the account ; he should have recollected that he (Lord Brougham) had said, that although in some cases the effect which be deprecated might occur, yet in all the tendency to produce that effect existed. It was only the tendency of head-money on which ho dwelt. It might be that every now and then a case occurred ; but it was against the tendency to produc a cases that he protested. The tendency was that no slave-ship was likely to be captured until she weighed enough to make it worth while to cap ture her. If this tendency was not followed by acts, no thanks to the system. The system he had condemned ; but he denied, anxiously, elaborately, and prolixly denied, that it produced the effects which might be expected from it. Every now and then it might produce them ; for it had an in evitable tendency to produce them. Naval officers were men, men. Were sailors the only infallible persons in the world ? The holding out the temptation of head-money clearly showed that it was supposed they would do more with that temptation than without it. Did the navy mean to set up for being en tirely immaculate ? Did they mean to let the flag of in fallibillity fly at their mast head ? Did they think of putting him down in that manner? What he had said was, that the System had the tendency which he ascribed to it. In time and except by a miracle, it must occasionally have the effect which he had ascribed to it. That was no charge against the whole naval profession ; that was no charge which ought to make every naval officer, from the man who wore a brace of epaulets on his shoulders down to the little midship man, to take fire. His charge was against the tendency of a system upon a body of gallant men, thanks to whom, however, it generally failed to produce the effects that might be expected from it. If the Noble Lord could not see the difference between two distinct things—between a state ment and a disclaimer—between a rule arid an exception—and still persisted that although perhaps the remonstrance a little too strong, it was perfectly justifiable, he (Lord Brougham) would only say that the Noble Lord had just as little acute ness in his defence as those whose counsel he had made himself had shown in their charge. Falsehood meant, not only im posing what was not true as fact, but by imposing it, knowing at the same time that it was not true. Now he (Lord Brougham) had given his authorities for what he had stated; he had given the authority of Captain Laird ; he had given the authority of Mr. Oldfield. On those authorities he had rested the statement which he had made to their Lordships. Now a word as to the time which had elapsed since that state ment was made. The Noble Lord said it was evident it must create great soreness in the naval profession, and that some of i,s members would rush to its defence. How was it then, that his speech, having made on the 29th of January, nothing had occurred until the Ist of March, when the shell of their indignation had • taken fire and exploded ? Did the slow match at the Admiralty burn so very slowly, not only that it was not necessary to time it by a stop-watch, but that any one would be safe in passing the building during . a whole month ? The fuse of this shell had burnt dully during the whole of February ; but on the Ist of March it went off, making a fizzing and offensive explosion. There was nothing distinct, clear, or dreadful in the blowing up. The pot merely burst, with an offensive explosion ; and thus March having. come in like a lion, might, perhaps, according to the old proverb, go out like another quadruped. Lord MELBOURNE said that if the Noble and Learned Lord's position was a good one, that it ritability of feeling and intemperance of language showed that there was something wrong on the part of those by whom they were exhibited. the Noble and Learned Lord had certainly brought him self within the scope of his own axiom. He ( Lord Mel bourne) perfectly agreed with his Noble Friend near him that it was not at all surprising, considering what the Noble and Learned Lord had said in the speech in question, that gallant officers, men of high honour and of quick and lively feelings, should be anxious to defend their profession from the grave imputations which had been cast upon them by the Noble and Learned Lord. The Noble arid Learned Lord disclaimed these imputations, and so did the writer to whose authority he had referred. Ile ( Lord Melbourne) gave to both full credit for their disclaimers. But certainly their was a little inconsistency in the argument which they employed, Ile would not, however, enter into any further argument, or discussion on the subject. But he could not sit down without observing that the Noble and Learned Lord bad gone much further than he ( Lord Melbourne) had ever known a n y one go in animadverting upon the debates and proceedings in the other House of Parliament, The Noble Lord had not only defended himself from the charge brought against him in the other House of Parliament, but he had freely animadverted upon the manner in which all the proceedings in that HHouse were carried on, and even up on th e con d uct o f t h e indi vidual who held the highest station in that House. 'kb. Noble and Learned Lord had not only accused of prejudice and partiality the Hon. and Gallant officer, who, „ n the floor of the other House, had brought a charge against him, but he had ascended higher, and had asked why the c harge , had been allowed to pass without observation from the greatest authority in the House. Now, it should be recollected that the Noble and Learned Lord, by publishing his speech in the shape of a pamphlet, had given an opportunity to any Hon. Member of the other House to allude to or quote it • without any breach of order. No imputation of partiality or neglect of duty could rest, therefore, on the high authority by which the Hon. and Gallant officer who had adverted to the Noble and Learned Lord's observations was allowed to proceed without interruption. For himself (Lord Mel bourne), who bad not read any report of the proceedings in question, he reposed such perfect coufidence in the im partiality of the Right Honourable Gentleman who pre sided in another assembly, that he was quite sure there was no ground whatever for the imputation which the Noble and Learned Lord had endeavoured to cast upon him. ll° was perfectly certain that under his authority the delibera tions of the other House were conducted strictly according to the orders, rules, and forms of Parliament, and that he held the scales with the perfect equality bet ween co ntending patties, which the Noble and Learned Lord had so well de scribed it was his duty to do. The motion was then agreed to. The Duke of WELLINGTON observed that there were many cases in which the captors of slave chips had been compelled to assert their claims in a court of law, and were subjected to very large expenses in consequence. In ! Irani. instances in which they failed in prod uc i ng l ega l p r oof 0 their rights they were condemned in costs. Now, he thought it very desirable that in addition to the returns which had just been ordered on the motion of the Noble Lord, their Lordships should have some account of the expenses to which he had alluded. He was not then prepared to make a mo tion for the production of these papers, but he would do s° next week. The Earl of MINTO observed that it was very important that the House should be in possession of the information al luded to by the Noble Duke. UPPER CANADA. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY gave notice that on Thursday next he would present a petition from the Pro testant inhabitants of Upper Canada, praying for protection to the Established Church in that province. At half-past six o'clock their Lordships adjourned till Monday. BEAUTIES OF THE COURT OF CHARLES Tho second part of the new and cheaper edition, with addi tions, of Mrs. Jameson's " Memoirs of the Beauties of this Court of Charles II." is just published by Mr. Colburn, of Great Marlborough -street. The portraits in this part are those of the beauteous and arrogant Lady Denham, in interesting from the poetical fame of her husband—the wealthy' Duchess of Somerset, the wife of three successive husbands-- the noted Frances Stewart, Duchess of Richmond, whose marriage was the immediate cause of Lord Clarendon's dis grace—and the merry, open-hearted Nell Gwynn, who, with all her faults, was at least exempt from the courtly vice of hypocrisy. These portraits are executed in the first style of art. That of Nell Gwynn is alone worth the price of the Number. The work is to be completed in Six Monthly Parts, at is. 6d. each. PATENT LEVER WATCHES. Price, at T. COX SAVORY'S, 47, Cornhill, London. SILYER CASES. With double-bottom cases £6 6 With hunting cases GOLD CASES. Size for ladies, with elegant gold dial Size for gentlemen, with enamel dial This celebrated construction (the most accurate on which a watch can be made) is now offered at the above price, with the latest improvements, i. e., the detached escapement, jewelled in four holes, capped, hand to mark the seconds, and maintaining power to continue going while winding up. 14 COX SAVORY, Working Silversmith, Goldsmith, and Watchmaker, 47, Cerribil/p: London ( Seven Doors from Graceehureh-street). BIRTHS. On the 25th ult., at Hendon, th• lady of P. Campion Taker , Esq., of a daughter. On the 26th ult., the wife of Charles Candy, Esq., of Park-hill, Tooting, of a daughter. At Camden-town, on the 25th ult., Mrs. Ralph E. G. Johnson, of a daughter, still-born. On the 25th ult., the lady of M. P. Guimaraens, Esq., O f Maida-vale, of a son. On the 24th ult., at Brighton, the lady of the Rev. C. Goring► of Twineham, Sussex, of a daughter. MARRIED. On the ISt of March, at Freshford, by the Hon. and Rev. AA' neAcy Gore, the Right Hon. the Earl of Arran, to Elizabeth Marianne, daughter of Colonel William F. I'. Napier, C. 13. On the 24 h ult., Richard Ford, Esq., of Heavitree, Devon , t o the lion. Eli za L. Cranstoun, eldest daughter of the late Lord Cranstoun. On the 24th ult. at the parish church of Tottenham, Mr. Wi n ' Morris, soli c it or , o f Chester, to Katherine, eldest daughter of the late Thomas Williams, Esq., of White Hart-lane, Tottenham. DIED. On the 26th ult., aged 74, Mr. David Thomas, of Bethal-grcen— road, nearly fifty years an inhabitant of that hamlet. On the 16th ult , at Guernsey, Saumarez, aged 3, and on liikt inst., Prances Charlotte, aged 4, children of Deputy- Comtnia.sary Dobree. On the 25th ult., at Bruton, aged 63, Christiana, wife of J. IC Ward, Esq., of that place. On the 24th ult., Elizabeth, wife of E. Howard, Esq., of Dean street, Soho. London: Printed and Pubtio:ied by MURDO YOUNG, of Ne.- 112, Strand, at The Suit Office. No. 11 0 , Strand, in the count] of l‘liddlesex...-Saturday, March 3, 1838.